Sounds all scientific and even believable. But the contents of a paintball are largely uncompressable. The gas pressure at the back of the ball is equally distributed and imparted on the uncompressible liquid fill which in turn pushes on the front of the shell. This all dictates that the paintball remains round. Tom Kaye has claimed high speed photography not showing deformation. I tend to beleive him, and his results coupled with the nature of the forces seem to point to a round paintball.Originally posted by Paladin
On the roundness of paint in barrels:
Not entirely true as it does not take into account the distortion of the ball as it is compressed from front to rear by the g-forces of acceleration. This causes it to tighten against the side wall of the launch tube and create friction at the sides which adds to the distortion into a cylindrical shape for at least part of its travel down the tube.
But that's all beside the point. What's the magical difference between open and closed bolt? In the barrel the forces are identical.
What's the magical optimisation that will help closed bolt operation? While I respect what PPS does with markers, valves, and regulators, no hint is given here as to what magic the elves are supposed to be accomplishing. What optimisation should have been done? Why shouldn't the same optimisations be done to the open bolt?On the WARPIG experiment:
No, that is not what it proved at all. That test only proved to me that the gun was not tuned properly to maximize the potential of true closed bolt operation. If the gun was not optimized for best results in one mode, it isn't hard to see why it would show similar results in another mode.
If you read the test descrition it seems to me the firing was separate from the chambering. In fact it would seem the gun was operated as a 'bolt action'. Meaning that any claims this wasn't 'TRUE CLOSED-BOLT' are somewhat far-fetched.The only "FACT" shown is that THAT gun on that day did not show a benifit to closed bolt operation. On the other hand, if the same bolt/hammer arrangement was used for both tests (closed and open bolt firing) the results would have to be the same. True closed bolt operation requires that the chambering cycle be completely seperate from the firing cycle. Bolt and hammer operating independantly. Open-bolt firing puts chambering of the round and firing it in the same move.
What's the magical rest time that a ball needs to recover from the 'abuse' from the bolt? Leading to the question of at what point does closed bolt, if you beleive it has an advantage, become the same as open-bolt?
Where's the proof that the bolt deforms the ball so as to affect consistency?
A barrel can only be "better" if it is different than the one it is being compared to and the best barrel for a "closed-bolt" firing gun may not be the best barrel for the same gun operating in "open-bolt" mode.
What's the magical force that makes the barrel requirements different? What are the differences that do make a barrel better?